Gender Identity has been under study for just yonks'. There have been far too many folk moralizing about the various manifestations of it for like ever, or longer. Perhaps the issues with gender differentiation come from some not having to squat to pee? I wonder if no one had a Penis. We'd all be going round making messy little puddles.
I never felt that I was a bit different than my Mom, or Step Sister. As to skirts, it is likely that the majority of the world has men in skirts. I still remember seeing a YouTube Video of a Sheep Herder in the Himalayas In a skirt that was just a bit shorter than his knees, and he wore what appeared to be Penny Loafers. It was also snowing.
I remember being in a Babies dress as an infant. The desire never left me, despite the males of our household insisting that I wear pants. We who desire to wear skirts are not sick, rather it is our culture that evilly insists that our nature is wrong.
Tonight I was made sad that Rep. Tulsi Gabard has reignited the Bathroom Controversy by introducing a bill to screw with us again. Why is it that there are so many who insist that it is their duty to regulate the lives of others? It makes me so sad.
Happy Holidays. Happy Hanukkah
Gwen
Comments
Well, it is their duty.
They are "Elected" to do exactly that (In general terms), make laws the majority think are moral, and approve of.
In principal that is a good thing, but it can, and has been corrupted so thoroughly that the actual representatives are corrupted long before they get to actually stand in such elections. The system rarely gives anybody a choice. In the rare instances where a choice still exists, both options are bad choices, so it becomes a matter of taking the lesser evil, rather than a choice between good, and evil.
The actual problem
Neither the USA, or the UK where I live are actually Democracies, they are carefully manipulated, to give the illusion of democracies, without the actual substance, and the main way that is achieved is by using a FPTP (First Past The Post) system restricted by regional voting blocks.
US has the further issue in Presidential elections of the Electoral College giving all regional votes to the regional winner, but that's a side issue.
Both of our systems were set up in by existing elites in the past, and were never intended to be democratic, just give the appearance of democracy.
The main way this is achieved is by gerrymandering (By both parties), setting those regional voting blocks too favour two broad based parties, one on the left, one on the right.
Contrary to what voters generally believe, these parties are not that different, at the top, the people elected are after power, which party they pick never really matters as much as the fact, that only Red, and Blue have any chance of being elected.
Why is that?
The voting system, is designed to lead to a stable state of Two Party's, both gaining a majority of seats, from Safe constituencies.
These are guaranteed to vote only one way, in broad terms because they are mostly rural (Right), Urban (Left).
The actual battle is whittled down to a few key marginal (Swing) regions where these Rural, Urban splits are very close.
The only options a voter has is Red, or Blue, sure other parties can exist, but in a FPTP system, they can never wield power, because Red, and Blue are guaranteed to hold the safe seats, and likely to still win in marginals, because everybody knows, only Red, and Blue can hold power.
How can you hold them to account?
if you're solidly left wing, will you vote for a right wing candidate, because your representative let you down? unlikely, and same goes the other way.
You have no actual way to hold your candidates to account, because you have no viable option, and switching candidates doesn't really help, most are corrupted long before they get into the position of potential candidate, because it's the existing well oiled machinery of such systems that picks the candidates to begin with.
Further Red, and Blue are Broad churches that contain, a wide range of political opinions, both parties are full of hidden factional infighting, many coalitions exist within each party, but the are fluid, and which seats are in each coalition is hard to pin down, but no voter gets any input into how the coalitions vote, because all they get to choose, is Red, or Blue.
It's a fact that no UK government has ever got over 50% of the national (Popular) vote, Except during a transition period, between the wars when the 2nd party switched to Labour, from the Liberals, because voting was massively expanded to all men over, and women, and the system penalised both as if a 3rd party (Large % of voters, but few victories, as Conservatives took seats with more votes than each, but far less than the combined totals, until labour fully took over fully, and the two party system stabilised once more, but it clearly shows how difficult is is to win FPTP as a third party it took an unprecedented massive expansion of voting, giving ordinary working people the vote, for the first time, even that took 10 years.
Up to this point, only Property owners had the right to vote, even that was expanded three times, going from a mere 3% of the population (Rural Property owners mostly), to urban property owners.
1918 – Extends vote to all men over 21 and most women over 30
1928 – Extends vote to all women over 21
1969 – Extends vote to men and women over 18
The System isn't broken, it's working as intended, but that intent was never really a democratic one.
How You Fix The Electoral System
First you get rid of Regional voting, if you're voting for a national government, votes are counted nationwide, , if you're voting for a regional (State, County, Borough, City, town whatever) government, votes are counted regionwide, and allocated by a PR (Proportional Representation).
If Red gets 30% of the national vote, Red gets 30% of the seats
If Blue gets 30% of the national vote, Red gets 30% of the seats
If Green gets 15% of the national vote, Red gets 15% of the seats
If Yellow gets 15% of the national vote, Red gets 15% of the seats
If Purple gets 10% of the national vote, Red gets 10% of the seats
Now for simple maths we will assume 100 seats, but the exact number can be any amount, whatever is deemed to give a fair representation.
it could be 100,000 votes per seat, it could be a million, the main point is it's total population divided by number of seats, so equal.
So in our hypothetical 100 seat Elected Chamber (Senate/House/Parliament/Whatever name you pick)
51 seat are required to form a ruling group, whether that's one colour getting 51% of the vote, or a coalition of several colours.
The difference between elected parties forming coalitions in public view is they can be held to account by the voter.
If your chosen colour only represents 5% of the coalition, you can exp0ect them to gain at least 5% of the policies they espoused in the campaign, and if your colour is the largest group in the coalition, you can expect the majority of policies implemented.
That's if a formal coalition is formed, it's also possible that issue based alliances can exist, with a minority largest party, forming variable coalitions, on a case by case basis.
The main advantage to the voter, whether they lean left, or right, is they have alternative parties other than red, or blue.
They can switch their vote to, another colour that is still leaning in the same direction as their beliefs.
Indeed no party is safe, There is no such thing as gerrymandering, or safe seats, all colours can lose the entire voter base, and new parties can arise to take the place of the ineffective ones.
How To Remove The Corruption
This is also easy to do, you simply take money out of the equation, making being a representative a vocation
First the elected must become Employees of the people, paid a set salary, with no outside investments.
If you want to represent the people, you work for the people, and your only recompense is provided by the people. NOT corporations.
If you don't want to do that, you don't get to be a representative.
It should be a well paid job, but that pay must only come from general taxation.
Elections are run by independent oversight, by a group of equally well paid people that voluntarily give up their right to vote, to ensure elections are free, fair and without organised corruption. Again they are working for the people, not the elite, or the politicians.
These independent bodies are given the power to set and change the rules, as new types of corruption are inevitably created, and used
The main point is to take the ability to use monetary advantage to influence voters, illegal, by setting up rules that give each party equal broadcast rights, we the people control the funding, and the ultimate means of calling parties to account becomes your vote.
Only with nationwide, and regionwide PR does one person = one vote have any valid meaning, because no individual vote is more powerful than another, all have equal power. With FPTP, gerrymandering ensures voting is never equal power. Systemic gerrymandering also exists like the 3 representative minimum for small states, giving their (Rural) populace more powerful votes than those from larger (Urban) states.
How can we do this
It's extremely unlikely (Impossible) to change a FPTP system from within the already corrupted system, as the recent US history shows.
Both Obama, and Trump got elected under campaigns of changing the system from within, and both were ineffectual.
Many voters, on both left, and right know the current system is broken, regardless of their politics, yet change from within the system is never going to happen. Only in times of revolution does such change happen, and even then it usually ends badly if the fight, and thus the victor is due to a fight between the ideologies of left, or right. Such battles usually end with dictators grabbing power.
The only way a better system can emerge, is if political differences are set aside, before the revolution, and though such revolutions don't have to be violent ones, such "Velvet" revolutions, where the existing power wielders give up without fighting, are extremely rare.
Change will come, eventually, and it will most likely be violent, but to fight for a fair representative democracy, you have to put aside your political biases, and fight with the other colour, to set the fair system in place first, then you can divide, and start the voting campaign.
In the US the Republicans have been more successful with their gerrymandering, which is why they can still win with fewer votes.
This is where the real voter fraud happens, and both sides do it, but the republicans have been far more ruthless, and thus effective.
Dark Elven Sissy Slut – Uhuru N’Uru
Neither the USA, or the UK where I live are actually Democracies
I can't speak for the UK, but as for America, we are a democratic republic. This site give a simple over view of the difference between a democracy and a republic. Ben Franklin was up front about it. A woman was reputed to have asked him what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had give us. His answer was strait to the point. “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
We are democratic republic because the representatives to the ruling body (Senate and House) are democratically elected. We as voters have to rely on the words and promises that the representatives espouse during their campaign. But it is a common axiom that it's easy to tell when a politician is lying... their lips are moving. It's true that both party candidates often, if not always say what ever it will take to gain votes and then, when elected, fall in line with the party machine in passing laws. See "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
Ich bin ein femininer Mann
My Thread has been Derailed.
Our Government, in my mind, is actually an Oligarchy, and most of us try to keep our heads down so as not to attract the bastards attention.
I had intended to discuss the various roles that our Genders give us. Off to make a bit of stew.
Gwen
derailed
Of course it was. Blimey girl this is bigcloset anything you post can and will be turned against you!
SWitched
It was switched to an entirely different destination not derailed.
There are obvious differences between men and women. The bigger and stronger used their physical advantages to claim the glamorous jobs (hunting, fishing, fighting (glamorous mostly to immature males), construction) and to assign the drudge jobs (cooking, cleaning, child care) to the smaller and weaker. This division of labor was institutionalized by tribal custom, and blessed by religious teaching, to the point the most accept it as the natural order decreed by God. We have a long way to go to change that thinking.
How to control your masses
Political parties were created by power elite (nobles, theocrats, oligarchs, etc.) as a way to control election outcomes. They have become power elite in their own right since. Political parties control choice by prechoosing the choices presented to the voters.
The second tactic the power elite use is to select the franchise. They limit who can vote to those who will vote as desired.
The third tactic is to discourage voting in general. The fewer voters the better for them. Voter apathy is not accidental.
The last tactic is to discourage education. The less educated the voters are the more easily they can be swayed to not vote or to vote as directed.
Other tactics exist but are used by factions within the power elite to achieve dominance over other factions. (Eg. gerrymandering)
BAK 0.25tspgirl
The problem with democracy...
I have been away and have returned to read comments and blogs, so excuse me for being too late to this party.
Democracy is not perfect. There are problems.
The first one is that putting power in the hands of the stupid does not result in good government. The Greeks invented the word "democracy" (rule by the people) when the people were a that "power elite" who were educated and politically savvy to make the right calls." If there is one thing that the Trump experiment has proved it is that the masses can be manipulated. "I love the uneducated" - Trump actually said that.
If the franchise is universal then there should be some education and a strict adherence to the facts in political discourse, lest fools place one of their own in a position of power.
Voting discouragement is wrong, but apathy is no crime. I used to worry about being apathetic myself, until I decided not to bother.
But the major problem with democracy based on universal suffrage is that rule by the majority does not always protect the minority. The framers of the Constitution knew that and tried to put in provisions, and amendments since for the same reason. But despots build their power by singling out one groups and setting their followers against them.
Political parties are a conglomeration united to gain power, yes, but they should be based on policies not polemics.
As for gerrymandering and complex voting forms and such, these a peculiar to the USA and state and federal divide. But with the power so split can this really be resolved? It should be done by an apolitical body, if one can be found.
Maryanne
Gerrymandering
A few states (including mine, California) have turned redistricting over to a nonpolitical committee. It took a ballot proposition to do it, over the opposition of both the Democrats and Republicans, whose legislators were more interested in keeping their safe seats than competing for more. Other states have tried and a few have succeeded, but in at least one case it was declared contrary to their state constitution by the state supreme court, and apparently amending their constitution by ballot is more difficult than passing a proposition.
As I understand it, "democracy" was dismissed for most of world history as synonymous with "mob rule". ("Vox populi vox dei" was said derisively at first.) The U.S. Founding Fathers were constructing a republic with democratic elements: only the House of Representatives was subject to popular election, and states set their own criteria for federal voting rights, though they had to match the ones used for state elections. The Senate was chosen by state legislators, the president by an Electoral College whose members were selected by state legislators in any way they saw fit -- a popular election, even of state electors, let alone ones pledged to a presidential candidate, wasn't mandatory -- and federal judges were appointed for life by the president with Senate approval.
Political parties, not part of the Founders' consideration, changed things, as did Constitutional amendments. Eventually popular vote was mandated for the Senate. Voting rights were extended by federal law over the years to prohibit most overt discrimination. But state legislations still choose that state's electors, and aren't obligated to select the popular vote winner, something Mr Trump tried unsuccessfully to exploit in 2020. And electors don't have to vote for the candidates to whom they're pledged. Sometimes a scattered few, generally knowing their votes won't change the overall result, decide to vote for someone other than the candidates who were on the ballot. Nobody did this year. (Some states have passed laws outlawing that, but if the electors demand a secret ballot, it'd be tough to definitively determine the offender.)
Eric